Globally, January 2013 was the second warmest January among the past 35, with an annual global average temperature that was 0.51 C (about 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year baseline average, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. January 2010 was the warmest January, while January 1998 is now pushed to third warmest.

Compared to seasonal norms, over the past month the coldest area on the globe was east central Russia near the town of Nyagan, where temperatures for the month averaged as much as 2.51 C (about 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the “warmest” area on the globe in January was the Norwegian arctic archipelago of Svalbard, which is north of Norway and east of Greenland. Temperatures there averaged 4.1 C (about 7.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms for January.

As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.

The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.

based on anecdotal evidence, I have to strongly disagree. According to the graphic provided, southern Ontario, where I live, was one of the warmer spots. I have built a backyard ice rink every winter for the last 6 years. This was the first January in which temperatures were so consistently cold, I was able to literally spray on the water from one end to the other, and by the time I reached the end of the rink, the starting point was frozen solid, allowing me to apply multiple layers of ice in a single flooding. I’ve been loving how cold this January has been. And while we did get two very warm thaws, this has not been out of the ordinary, as I have experienced several January thaws every year. This was the first year in which I was able to build up enough thickness that the thaws didn’t result in the rink needing to be shut down for days afterwards. What are the chances they’re adjusting the data before releasing?

to have an anomaly requires you KNOW the proper baseline to be varying away from…….there is no single baseline of the “correct climate” so there CANT be an baseline to measure anomalies from in the first place…….using the term anomaly assumes there is a “normal” stable climate and that has never existed yet on this planet.

Something tells me there is going to be a lot more to this anomally. I can’t wait. Here in Tucson, we hit 15 degrees F, I believe on January 23rd, which the last time that happened was 2 years ago. We have had a cold January once again similar to 2010. Anecdotal yes, but sometimes anedotes are right.

When the temperature of the “Lower Troposphere” is measured, I think it includes the level of my backyard themometer, but does it also include air above? If so, how far above? Is it the lowest 100 feet? 1000 feet? I ask because some of these arctic air masses are remarkably thin. The GFS computer busts on forecasted nighttime lows on a regular basis, because the cold “sneaks under its radar.”

Interesting graphic. I see the general Phoenix area is listed as about 0 degrees difference from normal, yet the utility company reported it as being 4 degrees below last year, which wasn’t “average,” either. I guess the atmosphere from, say, about 500 meters up must have been WAY warmer than normal.

The best skeptical position on these numbers is not to attack those who put them together but to put the numbers in perspective. No one knows what physical processes the numbers measure and it is the physical processes that are important and that should interest us. This point is clear in many comments. For example, some have attempted to explain the numbers as the result of unusual moisture moving up the US west coast to Alaska. But there is no science that ties these numbers to well understood physical processes. The important point for skeptics to hold dear is that these numbers are not the reality but one measure of something that remains poorly understood.

Discussing the numbers and the methods used to assemble them is important. Our best guesses about the underlying physical processes are important. Solving the various puzzles that the numbers present is important. All of it is very interesting. However, until there are vast improvements in the physical science there will be no clear connection between the numbers and reality.

Where are the error margins, where are the instrument calibration data? What a load of garbage – +/-0.4 Deg C is just NOISE!

###########

for calibration see the pages provided by the satellite teams involved. google is your friend. First you need to go to Roys page and find the platform he uses.( eg MSU or AMSU ) then go to page for that platform. There you will find a pile of documents showing the calibration One issue that Roy has to deal with is drift.

If you reject Roy because you dont beleive. once you see the calibration data and invent another objection take care. That is a form of conspiritorial ideation.
The right way to do this is to LOOK for the calibration data FIRST. Then if you find something, report it.

here are some examples of what you can find in short order since google is your friend.
perhaps “Just the facts” will do an information page for instrument calibration.

“When the temperature of the “Lower Troposphere” is measured, I think it includes the level of my backyard themometer, but does it also include air above? If so, how far above? Is it the lowest 100 feet? 1000 feet? I ask because some of these arctic air masses are remarkably thin.”

The product estimates the temperature of the atomosphere in the Lower Troposphere.
See the channel descriptions for the altitude covered.

The relationship between the temperature at 2m and the temperature miles above the surface is in fact rocket science, so take some care.

‘Theo Goodwin says:
February 6, 2013 at 11:11
The best skeptical position on these numbers is not to attack those who put them together but to put the numbers in perspective. No one knows what physical processes the numbers measure and it is the physical processes that are important and that should interest us. ”

################
Nihilistic Skepticism. No one knows the physical process? Well, that’s not true.
The sensors measure the brightness temperature. That brightness temperature is transformed into the temperature of the atmoshphere at various altitudes. This estimate is cross checked with other measurements. the science behind this works. Our country is safer as a result.
You can even estimate the temperature of the ground to with 1K. tested. field verified.
So, some people know.
Funnily, claiming that you know that no one knows is anti skeptical.

Stephen Mosher says
If you reject Roy because you dont beleive. once you see the calibration data and invent another objection take care. That is a form of conspiritorial ideation.
The right way to do this is to LOOK for the calibration data FIRST. Then if you find something, report it.

Henry says
What is this. Is he drunk>?
UAH does not make any sense anymore.

We’ve had a recent “sudden stratospheric warming.” One must consider the possibility that such warmings affect the upper anchor point of the lapse rate, which is the radiating zone, and therefore propagate downward into the troposphere. The above graphic shows the warming is at the poles. The noaa chart below, for the stratosphere north of 65 degrees, also shows warming at the poles. This ssw appears to be diminishing. Perhaps the tlt temperatures will also reverse.

Mosher, let me try to explain why you get so many rocks thrown at you on this website. Your first problem is that, as we used to say in grammar school, you call people names. To make things worse, you don’t know the meanings of the word you try to use. Skeptics use logic, scientific method, and empirical evidence to search through the dross in an effort to find the truth, well confirmed physical hypotheses being the ultimate goal. What does a nihilist do? Go look it up. Nihilism and skepticism are incompatible. A nihilistic skeptic is something like a short tall man.

Your second problem is that your comments are gratuitously offensive. You have begun using the terminology of the Lewandowskys and other cranks. See how far that gets you.

Mosher continues:

“No one knows the physical process? Well, that’s not true.
The sensors measure the brightness temperature. That brightness temperature is transformed into the temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes. This estimate is cross checked with other measurements. the science behind this works.”

Do you really think that you have identified some physical process that is measured by the satellite temperature measurements? All I see is that you refer to “the brightness temperature” and “the temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes.” Do you think those are physical processes? Do you think that “the atmosphere at a specific altitude” is a physical process? If you do then please do what any genuine scientist would do: state the well confirmed physical hypotheses that describe the natural phenomena occurring at that specific altitude in the atmosphere. I am skeptical of your claims for the same reason that I have always been skeptical of them: whenever asked to produce well confirmed physical hypotheses you produce nothing.

The UAH plot shows an oscillation of period about 3 to 4 years superimposed on a gradual rise in temperatures.

The negative anomalies at the troughs of the oscillation largely fade away through the 1990s and since then almost every month is in positive territory cf the 1981-2010 climatic mean.

It would be interesting to see the plot reconstructed taking solar forcing variations and then the Pacific oscillation out as I would expect then the trend line to be much smoother – those 2 look to be the main short term forcing factors (in the absence of major volcanic eruptions).

The plot also exposes very well the fallacy of picking 1998 to try and show that warming has stopped or that long term cooling has set in.

The 13 month running mean plot also shows up the 3 to 4 year period well and suggests we are on a warming trend towards a peak this year or next. Then if the oscillation continues we should see a few years of cooling again.

Whats important is the long term trend ie decadal and longer and that remains consistent with a warming world.

What did cloud cover, snowfall, and rain do in Jan (ie, what was the water vapor change)? If percipitation is up, this might be a release of latent heat release. A quick rise in temp which will cause heat to be radiated away for an overall lower heat content for the year and lower temp if the water cycle returns to trend.

How does the late start to the monsoons and the subsequent flooding in northern Australia and Indonesia play into all this? Was it a part of the explanation for the observed conditions, or a consequence of?

As I noted in the previous posting on UAH data last night, this high temperature is exactly what I would expect. If one removes the 60 year sinusoidal cycle there is a clear cycle of peaks. This “noise” has periodicity of 3.75 years and an amplitude of around plus or minus 0.4 degrees C. When the amplitude of the noise is greater than base signature you are always going to get these irrelevant peaks. This is the tenth peak in the series since 1979 although the two peaks in between 2000 and 2008 ( two cycles of 3.75 years) are a bit messy by having small troughs superimposed on top too. If you look closer you will see that, starting from 1979, there are two peaks of similar size followed by a deeper trough. This pattern repeats through the whole data set – except for the 1998 peak which coincides with the change in the 60 year sinusoidal trend from negative to positive. Given the inertia in the climate system a don’t see any reason why this pattern of ten 3.75 year cycles or four 7.5 year cycles shouldn’t continue for a little longer yet. Expect 2016 to be very cold – but will rebound 0.8 degrees on the other side for a new irrelevant “noise” peak.

I note here too that the 60 year cycle is also irrelevant “noise”. This data set is too short to see any genuine long term trend. I asked – my guess is that the rising trend out of the Little Ice Age has flattened out and will start to slope the other way rather than follow the Orsengo trend.

I usually use the climate4you data set which shows the 7.5 year cycles in the moving average:

I agree with you about the short term 3 – 4 year cycle – about which I posted earlier.

But the rest of what you say is peculiar.

You point to the cycle then say it is just noise – and “irrelevant” noise at that .

How does that work ?

A repeating cycle in a physical system is unlikely to be purely “noise”. Something is likely causing it and when you sit the various plots alongside each other, the Pacific Oscillation clearly links in as one such forcing mechanism.

As for 1998, I think most observers would agree that was the result of an unusually powerful El Nino.

@Steve Mosher.
With regard to you response to my comment at the top of this page. In the past I have looked for Satellite temperature calibration data at the NASA website. There is no information about resolution of this Data Acquisition System anywhere I can find. There is one statement that refers to the accuracy of the data:

“AIRS is a high spectral resolution spectrometer with 2378 bands in the thermal infrared (3.7 – 15.4 µm) and 4 bands in the visible (0.4 – 1.0 µm). These ranges have been specifically selected to allow determination of atmospheric temperature with an accuracy of 1°C in layers 1 km thick, and humidity with an accuracy of 20% in layers 2 km thick in the troposphere.”

Accuracy is a layman’s term- I suspect this was used for a reasons. It should really state RESOLUTION in the format of +/- 0.5°C (If that is what the resolution really is, but I would not be surprised if the resolution is +/- 1.0°C) Even if the RESOLUTION is as good as +/- 0.5°C, the plot of temperature anomoly is still just showing noise, it is below the resolution threshold of the instrument

Hi James,
My position is that there are short term cycles of 3.75 years which are clearly “noise” on any supposed AGW climate signature trend creating violent oscillations of 0.8 degrees C that should be ignored. The thirty month moving average is a better metric to look at. Also there is the fact that there appears to be a “weak” cycle followed by a “strong” cycle which gives 7.5 year cycle to the moving average ( see Climate4you link). The fact that the 1998 peak coincides with a strong ENSO peak suggests that they may be related causally – but maybe the two just line up to form a bigger peak. The 7.5 year cycle which creates those dips in the moving average should repeat the dip in 2016. If the moving average dips by that much then the trough that causes that dip will have to be even bigger.

Further my position is that the 60 year cycle which causes the curve seen in the moving average is also “noise” (see Girma Orsengo’s paper) on a linear trend out of the Little Ice Age which constitutes a major long term trend. However one should not forget that this in turn is just noise on a 300 year cycle … which in turn is noise on an even bigger cycle …. and so on and so on. Girma’s paper is at: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/predictions-of-gmt.pdf
I believe that the current long term trend (300 year cycle) is actually flat but you wont see that in the tiny snapshot since 1979.

Here are the formulae I use and I extrapolate to 2020:
To summarise, the global temperature anomaly graph can be characterised by
combining three simple formulae:

A = 0.18*SIN(((YEAR-1993)/60)*2*3.14159)+0.2

B = 0.15*COS(((YEAR-1982)/7.5)*2*3.14159

C = 0.25*COS(((YEAR -1980)/3.75)*2*3.14159

The overarching trend is a sixty year cycle: = A

The moving 20-month average adds a 7.5 year cycle attenuated by the truncation of
the positive peaks of the 7.5 year cycle : = A + (IF B>0, 0, ELSE = B)

The monthly average combines a 7.5 year cycle with a 3.75 year cycle (i.e. twice the
7.5 year cycle) to capture the pattern where every second trough in the 3.75 year COS
function is significantly deeper the others : = A + (2/3) * B + C

It ain’t perfect but I’m assuming that inertia will continue these trends at least until 2020

A. Crooks : I agree – the UAH data appears to show multiple sine waves, with a full MAJOR cycle being longer than what has been measured so far. It will be interesting to see what happens in 30 years for those who are still alive …

I really don’t understand the random complaints about this, or the sudden hostility toward UAH. The data is the data, and one point does not make a trend. While this was a large jump for one month it’s hardly extraordinary, and it hasn’t taken us above previous recorded levels.

We did have a brief El Nino last year. could this be a delayed effect from that? I seem to remember that such effects are usually delayed by a few months. If so then it should drop back down fairly quickly just as ENSO did.

Anyway, I’d hate to see WUWT posters start acting like climate alarmist, trumpeting anything that confirms their beliefs and shouting down any contrary data.

Schitzree says:
February 6, 2013 at 6:51 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Couldn’t agree more. Don’t fight the data. Examine it. Take the data and add it to our knowledge and determine what, if anything, we should do. Given that I live on a farm in the Great White North, my choice would be to do nothing … except go skiing as it appears that snow in the mountains around here is not in any danger of disappearing. Pretty much around average at this point in the year through most of western North America although it was way above average in most areas earlier in the winter. Being rather old, there doesn’t appear to be much new happening whether it is finding carbon or water all over the universe or discovering that temperatures and precipitation change over time. Why is this all such a surprise? Maybe it’s my dementia acting up.

Reply to Schitzree
I agree
What do they expect when there is a clear 0.8 degree “noise” signal other than wild swings. Do they really think, after all the swings of the past there is going to be a neat linear trend down to their preferred level (what ever that might be) or a neat linear trend up if you prefer.
If anyone wants to plot out my formulae they will see where I think the temp trend will go over the next ten years. I wouldn’t push it any further than that at this stage, But Id sure like to see other people’s best guess so we can all share why they are surprised at this data.

Hmmm. Curious. December 2012 and January 2013 were both above the 30-year average but Northern Hemisphere snow cover was at a record high extent in December 2012 and January 2013 was the sixth-highest snow cover extent on record since 1967. And considering what we read every day about record cold and snowfall in Asia, Russia, Alaska, and various other parts of the world, how can we reconcile these apparently discordant data?

To those who suggest that its all just typical sceptic screaming because the data is way up: that is not the point! The problem, for me at any rate, is the apparent disconnect between the data and what seems to have been happening on the ground. Had the data been supported by wideranging reports of warm weather on the ground, I doubt if any “sceptics” would have complained. Something is wrong. Or else, it is indicative of a problem with what is actually being measured. I suggest that almost anyone who has been following the news, on eyeballing the new data in graphic form, would register a jolt of surprise. So many jolts of surprise cannot be ignored, no matter how certain posters here try to rationalize the sudden jump in data. I am prepared to bet that even the warmists, in one brief moment before cracking the bottle of bubbly, to a man/woman registered that little jolt of surprise. Come on. Be honest now!

To those who suggest that its all just typical sceptic screaming because the data is way up: that is not the point! The problem, for me at any rate, is the apparent disconnect between the data and what seems to have been happening on the ground.

Not to worry. Have a look at the world anomaly. The large differences come at the region of the poles and the regions that are very cold anyway, and those are the ones that bias the average. The north pole during the winter is around and less than -60C the south pole is in the summer around and below -30C. The map shows “hot” excesses of 2.5C and 1.5 C in large swaths of the north, where really animals and people would never notice the difference, but the average is biased by this. If the excess were in large swaths of the oceans I would worry.

What has been happening is that circulations have moved cold air from the north to large areas , where the temperature fall is diluted, and brought warmer air to the poles where the temperature increase is enhanced because of the smaller region.

The whole concept of anomalies is skewed and useless scientifically, imo. Even the idea that an average world land temperature taken at 2meters height has a real meaning when averaged is strange for a physicist, let alone anomalies.

I would repeat that I agree with much of what you say. The 3 to 4 year cycle is particularly clear but there are others as you describe.

However, you do miss the point of what I posted – which is that regular cycles in physical systems are unlikely to be purely “noise”.

There is measurement error – which is accepted as real but which can be treated by looking at longer term means. And the measurement error can be quantified and in this case cannot explain the regular cycles.

If you are saying that noise is short term rebalancing within the system, that is still a physical process eg energy exchange between the oceans and atmosphere.

As I previously posted, the strongest candidate to explain the short term cycles in temperature is the Pacific Oscillation and from this plot you can see there is a good match between the phases of the temperature anomaly cycle and the Pacific ocean current cycle, but superimposed on an upward trend in temperature.

I gave such a (very, very general – it’s a fact – but I think: a lot of explaining) comment on the attack on J. Christy, R. Spencer and WUWT (in Things Break):

Proponents of the theory of AGW, as usual, simplify. Skeptics have very different views on warming – this is not a group of people with identical views!

For example, me completely does not bother the current warming (even a “satellite”) to be a skeptic.

Why?

For example, is why:

Lockwood (2010): “… the current grand maximum has already lasted for an unusually long time …”
Steinhilber and Beer (2011): “The 9300-year long composite of solar activity shows that during the past six decades the Sun has been in a state of high solar activity compared to the entire period of 9300 years.”

(http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/11-12/1981) Helama (2010):
“Thus, the warmer and cooler paleotemperatures during the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age were better explained by solar variations on a millennial rather than bimillennial scale. The observed variations may have occurred in association with internal climate amplification […] (likely, thermohaline circulation and El Niño–Southern Oscillation activity). THE NEAR-CENTENNIAL DELAY in climate in responding to sunspots indicates that the Sun’s influence on climate arising from the current episode of high sunspot numbers may not yet have manifested itself fully in climate trends.”

(http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende//frank/publications_EN/Raspopov_etal_PPP_2008.pdf) Raspopov ( 2008, coauthors: Esper, Frank et al.):
“An appreciable delay in the climate response to the solar signal can occur (up to 150 years). In addition, the sign of the climate response can DIFFER FROM THE SOLAR SIGNAL SIGN. The climate response to long-term solar activity variations (from 10s to 1000s years) manifests itself in different climatic parameters, such as temperature, precipitation and atmospheric and oceanic circulation.”

(http://www.springerlink.com/content/g589501544320529/) Swingedouw (2010): “We argue that this lag is due, in the model, to a northward shift of the tropical atmospheric convection in the Pacific Ocean, which is maximum more than four decades after the solar forcing increase.”
“Changes in wind stress, notably due to the NAO, modify the barotropic streamfunction in the Atlantic 50 years after solar variations.”

(http://www.clim-past.net/7/339/2011/cp-7-339-2011.pdf) Varma (2011):
“Since the reduction in TSI is only 0.15%, the global cooling effect is small and ADDITIONAL FEEDBACKS are required to induce a significant change in the westerlies.”
“… we propose that THE ROLE OF THE SUN in modifying Southern Hemisphere tropospheric circulation patterns has probably been UNDERESTIMATED in model simulations of past climate change.”

(http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010JC006264.pdf) Sejrup (2010):
“The observed ocean temperature response is LARGER than expected based on simple thermodynamic considerations, indicating that there is dynamical response of the high‐latitude ocean to the Sun. […]”
(http://lpc2e.cnrs-orleans.fr/~ddwit/soleil/DdW_solar_forcing_CRGeo2009.pdf) Dudok de Wit (2009):
“… the main mechanisms by which the Sun affects the Earth are not the most immediate ones in terms of energetic criteria.”
“- feedback mechanisms are not sufficiently well understood and positive feedback may be much stronger than expected …”
“According to the IPCC, over the last century, this impact has most likely been small as compared to anthropogenic effects. There are several important working fronts as far as the Sun–Earth connection is concerned. Most GCM whose development started in the lower atmosphere still largely IGNORE the upper part of the atmosphere on which solar variability has the LARGEST IMPACT.”

(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.927/abstract) Turney (2005):
“The cycles, however, ARE NOT COHERENT WITH CHANGES IN SOLAR ACTIVITY (both being on the same absolute timescale), indicating that Holocene North Atlantic climate variability at the millennial and centennial scale IS NOT DRIVEN BY A LINEAR RESPONSE to changes in solar activity.”

(http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/sgp/LA/LA07/LA7_19.pdf) Wojciechowski (2008 – I’m sorry, but only abstract and figure captions are in English) notes that the current transgression of the sea is perfectly inscribed in the cycles: millennial and bimillennial. If that is a cycle of Hallstatt was crucial for climate change, the current [natural] warming should take up to about 2250 AD …

Don Easterbrook, “Hmmm. Curious. December 2012 and January 2013 were both above the 30-year average but Northern Hemisphere snow cover was at a record high extent in December 2012 and January 2013 was the sixth-highest snow cover extent on record since 1967. And considering what we read every day about record cold and snowfall in Asia, Russia, Alaska, and various other parts of the world, how can we reconcile these apparently discordant data”

Change in latent heat. The two phase state change in H2O releases a lot of heat. This rise in temperature may be part of small, intense cooling. Heat is dumped into the atmosphere and radiated away, clouds and snow cover increase albedo (but perhaps keep some of that released heat near the surface for awhile).

James Abbott
I guess its running late but just in case you are still out there

I take your point – I guess I have my own definition of “noise” which I take to mean any signal that lies over any potential global warming signal that cannot be related to global warming.
Any cyclic event that takes temps up but then straight down again on a 3.75 year cycle is not adding to any overall warming and I call “noise”

I’ve found over time that this dataset (from NCEP and provided by Ryan Maue of weatherbell and contributor to WUWT) is reasonably accurate for short-term trends. The big drop in December shows up (for 3 weeks) and the big recovery in January (big drop moderates to the expected trend and then 1.5 weeks of well-above the trend expected).

The last two months have been semi-unusual in that there was enough of an up-down-up-down over enough of a time period that it affected the monthly numbers in unusual ways.

But I still think the overall trend will be down as we transition from a small short El Nino to a small short La Nina.

Water vapor numbers went way up in January along with the UAH/RSS atmosphere temps changes. Assuming this was a short-term unusual pattern, there should be a large drop in February. If not, well time to re-assess the situation again.

Is there any reason why January 2013 temperature anomalies are so symmetrical in North and South hemisphere? I haven’t done any extensive research but it looks like the hemispheres were somehow communicating. The only way I can think of is ENSO.

owest linear trend in this graph is the one from UAH
so pray do tell,
how can you reconciliate UAH with any other data set
never mind my own,
which shows much more cooling, still, generally, than any other data set